The New York Times, in its role as the bible of the liberal mindset, instructs the liberal justices of the Supreme Court to avoid a sweeping ruling imposing gay marriage across the nation by judicial fiat. And it cautions its readership to be careful what they wish for from the court. That's the gist of this news analysis article by Adam Litvak, titled "Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage." The word "shadow" gives away the game.

The piece prominently features the ideas expressed by Justice Ginsburg, in essence that Roe v Wade pre-empted the political process, short circuiting a transition already underway, and creating an enduring political movement in opposition to the judicial overreach:

"The Supreme Court's decision was a perfect rallying point for people who disagreed with the notion that it should be a woman's choice," she added. "They could, instead of fighting in the trenches legislature by legislature, go after this decision by unelected judges."

That general view is widely accepted across the political spectrum, and it might counsel caution at a moment when same-sex marriage is allowed in nine states and the District of Columbia and seems likely, judging from polls, to make further gains around the nation.

"Intervening at this stage of a social reform movement would be somewhat analogous to Roe v. Wade, where the court essentially took the laws deregulating abortion in four states and turned them into a constitutional command for the other 46," Michael J. Klarman, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in a recent book, "From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage." Mr. Klarman was a law clerk to Justice Ginsburg when she served on the federal appeals court in Washington.

It’s hard to decide which outcome we’d rather have. The outrage in some states generated by a ‘sweeping decision’ might backfire on Dems just as Roe Vs. Wade has. We’re winning that one after all these years. North Dakota down. 49 more to go.

Roe v Wade certainly corroded the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. The Supreme Court as an institution made possible the killing of 40 million human lives. What’s more it has proclaimed over and over again that abortion, the intentional killing of human life is a “constitutional” right. Well how can a decent person respect such an institution and how can a person of conscience take an oath to uphold and defend a constitution that permits such an atrocity? If they make gay marriage a “constitutional right”, more people will come to feel this way.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.